Member Info for MassiveRay

Someone seems rattled..

The only thing he's won is showing this board he's just as wrong as anyone has been. But it's even worse because he cant see this, so he just shows us dated rubbish but never nothing current and not the alleged short all the way down from above 1pence. But if that's what he calls winning then 🤷

Unfortunately you have zero credibility!

I'll come back and post about the reality of the situation when that rns drops... Katstrangler

You sound very bitter and jealous kat. We're better off than we were 8 days ago. Now stop stalking this board with rubbish if you dont want me posting on other boards. Let's not forget your posts and advice were complete utter rubbish that proved to be useless to newbies. Now try looking out the window or use your imagination.

No one cares about your old rubbish chaebol...

Have a lovely weekend all.

No one cares about your old rubbish chaebol...

Have a lovely weekend all.

Very pleased with the way the sp held just nicely.. feeling and looking an extra 5 years younger this weekend ☺️

You've been wrong more than a few times chaebol especially more recently so you can just as easily be wrong once again.

That's been explained to you already. Speculative buyers?

The “128 SINTs vs 28 trades” line sounds dramatic until you compare it against the actual turnover that has gone through the stock.

Since last Friday, GST has traded roughly 169 million shares across multiple sessions:

~60m on 8 May

~30m on 11 May

~53m on 12 May

~26m on 13 May

That is enormous real volume for a company of this size.

So while repeated tiny prints and “sints” may cosmetically influence the displayed last price in a thin market, they are still microscopic relative to the actual scale of trading activity that occurred.

More importantly, the market repeatedly absorbed multi-million-share sells without collapsing back to the panic lows. In a genuinely fake market with no real demand, I’d expect those large sells to completely crush the bid and keep it there.

Instead, buyers repeatedly reappeared materially above the lows over several sessions.

That’s why I think the “128 SINTs vs 28 trades” argument overstates what the tape actually proves.

Yes, cosmetic tape activity may exist around the edges — that happens in illiquid microcaps.

But the broader move still involved substantial real participation, genuine speculative buying, and meaningful turnover far beyond a handful of penny-sized prints.

We can all agree nobody here knows exactly what's going to happen from day to day let alone future events.

We could very well get an RNS uodate today about the semnet situation being stayed or not. The wording could also be very interesting we'll just have to wait and see.

Good luck all.

You're entitled to your opinion as I am, but all opinions are subjective and not objective truths, so it would make sense to not be so rude on a public forum about IQ levels that you actually aren't qualified to measure.

I wasn't involved with what you mentioned so you haven't answered my question.

I cant soeak for others why do you refer specifically to me as having low IQ?

I think you’re still overstating what the tape actually proves.

Repeated tiny prints influencing the displayed last price in an illiquid microcap is not some extraordinary revelation — that’s simply part of how fragmented low-liquidity markets behave.

But you keep treating that as conclusive evidence that the broader repricing itself was fundamentally artificial, and I still don’t think the tape supports such a definitive claim.

Because regardless of the micro-prints and “sints”, the market still absorbed very significant selling volume while continuing to transact millions of shares materially above the lows. That matters.

If the underlying demand was as weak and fabricated as you suggest, I’d expect the stock to have rapidly collapsed back toward the panic lows once those larger sells hit. Instead, buyers repeatedly reappeared and supported higher trading ranges over multiple sessions.

The lack of an RNS also doesn’t automatically invalidate speculative buying. Markets frequently move ahead of formal updates based on positioning, expectations, legal interpretations, sentiment shifts and simple risk appetite — especially in distressed microcaps.

So yes:

tiny prints can cosmetically affect optics,

perception influences momentum,

and speculative traders absolutely chase those moves.

But I still think calling the entire repricing process “artificial volume creation” is an overreach unsupported by the broader tape action itself.

We have differing views?

Interestingly you refer to me and many others as having low IQ please explain what separates you from me please?

I think we’re actually closer in viewpoint now than earlier in the debate.

I’ve already agreed multiple times that:

tiny micro-buys can cosmetically influence the displayed last price,

fragmented “sint” bursts can exaggerate the appearance of activity,

and optics absolutely matter in illiquid microcaps.

Where I still disagree is the jump from:“the presentation of demand is cosmetically enhanced”to:“therefore the underlying demand itself is largely fictional.”

Because the tape still showed millions of shares changing hands at materially higher levels than the lows, with buyers repeatedly willing to absorb size despite all the risks you’ve outlined.

So I don’t think this is a clean case of:“completely fake tape holding up a dead market.”

I think it’s more likely a volatile speculative repricing event where:

real buyers,

real sellers,

market-maker mechanics,

sentiment,

FOMO,

and cosmetic tape activityare all interacting simultaneously.

That’s messy and imperfect — but very different from saying the market itself is entirely manufactured.

I still think you’re presenting interpretation as certainty.

The simultaneous timestamp prints at 12:28:05 don’t automatically prove “coordinated fake volume”. In illiquid AIM stocks, a single larger order can be matched across multiple counterparties and reported in fragments at the same timestamp. That’s common market mechanics, especially with MMs and routed fills.

And again, you keep focusing exclusively on the cosmetic side of the tape while largely ignoring the bigger point:despite the heavy selling you reference, the market continued finding buyers willing to transact substantial size materially above the lows.

If the market genuinely “wanted” to trade only at 0.33 or below, the bid would eventually have collapsed there and stayed there. Instead, price repeatedly recovered into the 0.37–0.40 region because buyers were clearly still active.

The repeated 10-share prints may influence the displayed last price cosmetically — I’ve agreed with that multiple times now. But that alone still doesn’t conclusively prove the broader move itself was entirely artificial.

To me the tape still looks like:

genuine speculative demand,

heavy volatility,

market-maker mechanics,

opportunistic trading,

and some cosmetic tape activity all coexisting.

That’s very different from claiming the entire market was essentially fictional